Quote:

Original post by WeirdoFu We should never forget, that for most of us, the first RPG we've ever played in life may be Cops and Robbers on the play grounds as a kid. Simply as a kid and imagining yourself in the role of someone else is the most basic RPG. We make up our own stories to progress in and we develop our own characters in our own way. Never forget the basics, no matter how complicated the genre has become.

A similar idea was made in another post. I'd argue that (while the term "role playing" might apply literally) in the context of video games your illustration is better compared to Adventure games. Not necessarily the point-and-click variety, but general Adventure games which can include games like Zelda (an Action-Adventure game).

If your game of cops and robbers were even the most basic type of RPG, you'd have earned XP every time you caught your robber, and eventually you would have improved your own abilities :-) Nit-picking, but true.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun If your game of cops and robbers were even the most basic type of RPG, you'd have earned XP every time you caught your robber, and eventually you would have improved your own abilities :-) Nit-picking, but true.

Let's see, as alternative as this may sound, you do gain XP and you do improve your skills. The more robbers you catch, the better you get at catching them, though that's not to say the better they get at evading (adaptive gameplay). The XP you gain is more in the form of reputation, which levels you up among the perception of other players, which also means the robbers will avoid you even more. Of course, this is conceptually based on the assumption that the game goes on or continues over a long period of time. :p

Welcome to the forums!

My Essentials
1) Continuous progression of visible, gameplay-affecting stats
2) Between one and ten directly controllable avatars
3) Ability to make choices consistent with identifying with at least one well defined role
4) Series of obstacles culminating in a final end of game challenge
5) Choice driven narrative interaction with the world


I'll explain:
1) Most games have stats, be they the speed of your car or jump height for a hoop shot. But often the player doesn't see these. In some games, like Midnight Club which allows you to upgrade vehicles, you can intuit the progression of stats, but it's never a continuous progression.

2) Avatars can be anything from people to starships, but if the number you're expected to control becomes too high, it's called a strategy game, be it tactical, RTS or empire. Direct control is an essential feature that ties into #3

3) Many games give you a well defined identity. In Splinter Cell, for example, you're covert operative Sam Fisher, who has a past and defined character. However, you can't make meaningful choices, say to explore the character further or deepen him in some dimension or another.

4) Many games have missions / quests, but this seems to be a signature of RPGs. MMOs might be changing this, though. Note that these missions / quests don't have to be linear (I prefer open ended RPGs).

5) This is the crowning attribute for me. In an RPG, the world comes alive and the player can interact with it in a meaningful way. Places have lore, characters have names and history and even opponents have narrative dimension. Even in a so-called action RPGs like Diablo, which in comparison to something like Planescape:Torment is light on story, we get tales of deeds that imbue the world with emotional significance.

Other games may offer this content, but the RPG often stands out for amount and level of interactivity.

Dialog seems to be one of the most widely used and powerful tools the player has in accessing this narrative dimension. It's often through this feature that you see the player choices rationalized-- for example, in RPGs where you can kill NPCs willy-nilly or run around naked, dialog is the mechanism used to reflect the game world's reactions, which is essential for giving them context.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun There are a lot of people that would disagree with you about Fable and especially Oblivion.

You find Oblivion's combat engine something other than generic and simple? There's no mixing up strategy to defeat the AI - one tactic kills just about everyone. The melee attacks are extremely limited, and there's no complexity in increasing your effectiveness with them. Block, whack, whack, block, whack, whack, next. A macro could do it.

Mount&Blade is an example of similar combat that's done right. Its combat would be fun, even without its character advancement. The character advancement just makes it all better.

For me the two biggest items are a strong narrative and game mechanics that rely on more on the characters skill in the world and less on by ability to aim or push buttons to interact with the game.

Lot's of FPS's these days are introducing strong stories, but the gameplay is still skill/twitch based. However, when they add in character attributes that offset these skills (like system shock) they are introducing RPG elements and end up with a hybrid.

For example, imagine a standard FPS where the player directly controls the game character, aiming, shooting, etc. Now imaging the same scenario where the player no longer directly controls the game character but instead gives them commands like shoot and the accuracy, etc. is based on the characters skill level, not the players.

Quote:

Original post by Kest You find Oblivion's combat engine something other than generic and simple?

That's a loaded question. Regardless of whether or not its simple or even generic isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not people find it fun and entertaining, and given the success that both games have had, I'd say that's a big yes.

It's also worth noting that generic and simple can sometimes be the best design choice in the world. It can help make a game accessible and easier to get into and play, and in turn it can reach a wider audience. Also, sticking with things that people know and are familiar with, is a great way to give them an advantage in playing your game. Similar to the same way that most FPSs have control schemes that mimic Halo - use what people know and a larger number of people will understand your game more easily, which is important.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun Quote: Original post by Kest You find Oblivion's combat engine something other than generic and simple? That's a loaded question. Regardless of whether or not its simple or even generic isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not people find it fun and entertaining, and given the success that both games have had, I'd say that's a big yes.

I enjoyed Fable immensely, but the combat was boring and repetitive. Once you had the slash, block, dodge-cancel routine worked out, it reached the point that the final boss fell without dealing any damage.

If the combat was the totality of the game, I never would have played more than a couple of quests, before putting it down forever. However, the character development and the story were interesting enough to keep me playing through to the end.

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder Quote: Original post by QuantifyFun Quote: Original post by Kest You find Oblivion's combat engine something other than generic and simple? That's a loaded question. Regardless of whether or not its simple or even generic isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not people find it fun and entertaining, and given the success that both games have had, I'd say that's a big yes. I enjoyed Fable immensely, but the combat was boring and repetitive. Once you had the slash, block, dodge-cancel routine worked out, it reached the point that the final boss fell without dealing any damage. If the combat was the totality of the game, I never would have played more than a couple of quests, before putting it down forever. However, the character development and the story were interesting enough to keep me playing through to the end.

That's exactly what I was referring to. Imagine if Fable's combat was on par with a quality game that had no character development or story telling. Many RPGs seem to use their genre defining elements to excuse the quality of their gameplay. It works to make something entertaining, but it's definitely something that can improve.

Here are some personal examples of quality gameplay in RPGs:

Deus Ex: FPS ranged Combat
Morrowind: Exploration
Fallout: Exploration, Tactical battle
Mount&Blade: Melee combat
Star Control II: Exploration, ship to ship dog fights

Coming up with examples was even harder than I thought. I'm sure there are more.

Quote:

Original post by Kest That's exactly what I was referring to. Imagine if Fable's combat was on par with a quality game that had no character development or story telling.

This detracts from my original question, so I'll just add this last thought and then drop it :-)

I understand the point you're trying to make. My response is still the same, though. A whole lot of people would disagree with you.

Even if you take away the RPG aspects from Fable or Oblivion, they're still really well executed games and by no means bad or sub-par. There are definitely bad games or games with bad gameplay mechanics, but neither of these games guilty of that.

I think that something like this comes down to individual preference. Most all games are repetitive in one way or another, and you might be surprised (when you think of it) that some of your favorite games are actually very repetitive and "shallow" in their combat depth. The difference is just that you have more fun with one and not so much with the other. So, you're not really wrong, I'd just call it your opinion instead of fact.

Example: Assassin's Creed and Gears of War. Both were fairly repetitive, especially Assassin's Creed. However, I really enjoyed Assassin's Creed, and got bored to tears with Gears of War. One was very entertaining to me personally, and the other was not. But I wouldn't bother to argue their merits. I think that Gears is a fantastic game and a lot of other people really liked it. Just not me.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun Quote: Original post by Kest That's exactly what I was referring to. Imagine if Fable's combat was on par with a quality game that had no character development or story telling. This detracts from my original question, so I'll just add this last thought and then drop it :-)

If your original question is asking what RPG represents, I think it's pretty relevant that most RPGs have repetitive, grind-type gameplay.

Quote:

I understand the point you're trying to make. My response is still the same, though. A whole lot of people would disagree with you.

Your opinion is worthy without the need to represent a whole lot of people. Without literally removing the story and character development from a game like Fable to see how much everyone still enjoys it, it won't be easy to determine what a whole lot of people think.

Quote:

Even if you take away the RPG aspects from Fable or Oblivion, they're still really well executed games and by no means bad or sub-par. There are definitely bad games or games with bad gameplay mechanics, but neither of these games guilty of that.

This is all based on opinion, but I don't usually enjoy generic gameplay mechanics, even when they're integrated with sophisticated stats and skill systems. However, the stat and skill building cause the generic interactions to be become productive. Given that the rest of the game is enjoyable, I can tolerate it pretty well. Therefore, I enjoy most RPGs. But take away the stats and skills, and it becomes far worse. Suddenly, fighting through twenty random nobodies while traveling between two locations in Fable becomes nearly pointless. I would rather run past them. It's like working for no pay. Something I don't feel while playing decent games that have no character development.

Quote:

I think that something like this comes down to individual preference. Most all games are repetitive in one way or another, and you might be surprised (when you think of it) that some of your favorite games are actually very repetitive and "shallow" in their combat depth. The difference is just that you have more fun with one and not so much with the other. So, you're not really wrong, I'd just call it your opinion instead of fact.

Does this explain why I would enjoy Mount&Blade's melee combat, but not Oblivion's? The gameplay concept of both is the same. Oblivion just added too much mechanical restriction. There's very little room for the player to get strategic or creative with their actions to improve their effectiveness.

All of this is based on opinion, of course.